Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York.

Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight, the President`s bush (ph) on Fast-Track.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) House Speaker: The President need to step up is game in terms of garnering more support unless Democrats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President has been clear that he`ll stay with the Democrats to stay within on this issue.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If I didn`t think this was the right think to do for working families, I wouldn`t be fighting for it.

SCHULTZ: Plus, Boston terror investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Investigation say NBC News they believe Rahim was preparing to attack police in Boston within the next few days. Radicalized they say by ISIS inspired social media.

SCHULTZ: Later, Hillary`s newest rival.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lincoln Chafee`s is getting into the race today.

SCHULTZ: And announcing the announcement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bobby Jindal, he`s going to make a major announcement in New Orleans June 24th.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: We`ll make an announcement is to our intention.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching.

There is no question about it that this has been the hottest story in the news, all the network news this week. I mean heck it`s only Wednesday. Vanity Fair`s cover "Call me Caitlyn", use to be Bruce Jenner. No doubt a big story, but really let`s be honest with one another. How many Americans does it really affect?

It`s almost nauseating the amount of coverage that it`s getting. But of course I have a jaded opinion, because I`m focusing on other things because at this hour, President Obama does not have the votes for Fast-Track in the House. It`s like beating the drum that you just don`t give up on. You know what I mean. The President is leaning and I mean he is leaning on Democrats and members of Congress, just harder than ever before to get their support.

Now, on Monday President Obama reportedly called congressman from Connecticut Jim Himes urging him to support Fast-Tack. He was the only undecided member of the Connecticut delegation. Oh, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that conversation because you see the President is making all kind of promises right now.

The President reportedly told the congressman that "Hey, he has 20 Democratic votes lined up for Fast-Tack and, you know, what, you could be number 21".

The President needs support from roughly 27 Democrats to past Fast-Tack. President Obama has also been pushing hard on the Congressional Black Caucus for their support. They carry a big stick in all of this. They represent a lot of urban America, where there are jobs. Now most of the Congressional Black Caucus is reportedly against Fast-Track, trade promotion authority. That of course would be right in the president`s hand to go do trade agreements.

The chairman of CBC Congressman G.K Butterfield says "He is strongly leaning against Fast-Track". I don`t know how many other votes that he would bring along with him, but that`s a big vote. But he has not made a final decision and that is the key and that`s why the phone calls are taking place.

Here are the key undecided players at this hour in the United States House. For the Democrats, look at this. Nancy Pelosi former Speaker still Democratic Leader, Steny Hoyer who is the Minority Whip and James Claiborne.

And I would venture to say you couldn`t find three more honest, more heartfelt Democrats than these three right here. All of these high ranking Democrats have not said how they`re going to vote on Fast-Track. They want to do right by the President. They want to do right by the party. But wait a minute. It`s a little bit different this time. They`ve got to do right by American workers and this could be a real tough call.

The president has been reportedly asking Democrats to trust me. Trust, trust me on Fast-Track and the TPP. It`s the same pitch he`s been out making on the road time and time again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I`ve spent six and a half years trying to rescue this economy, six and a half years of trying to revitalize American manufacturing, including rescuing an American auto industry that was on its back and has now fully recovered. So I would not risk any of that. If I thought the trade deals were going to undermine it. If I didn`t think that this was the right thing to do for working families, I would not be fighting for it. If any agreement undercuts working families, I won`t sign it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, that is pretty convincing and I suppose that`s what the phone calls sound like.POLITICO reports Nancy Pelosi doesn`t want President Obama to be embarrassed. Is that what this is about? That`s what they report. That`s not a direct quote. Because she doesn`t want to see the President embarrassed I guess because of Fast-Track authority, if he doesn`t get it, it will make him look bad.

They report, "Administration officials have been so impressed by Nancy Pelosi`s approach to negotiations over Fast-Track. They`ve started to consider a crazy possibility she could even vote for it herself. But only if she has to". Whatever that means.

Does she have to support the President or have to support American workers? It`s important to note that Nancy Pelosi in the past really hasn`t liked Fast-Track. She voted against it in 2002, and has expressed serious concerns about Fast-Track and the TPP in the past. This is exactly why she should vote against authority that the President is seeking.

Meanwhile, organized labor, they`re out fighting like they`ve never fought before. Today was a big day. Today labor unions around the country stage what they call a Call-In Day that they are hoping to place a million phone calls to lawmakers urging them to vote against Fast-Track.

So, as we come down to the wire, we ask the question really where are we? Depends on who you listen to. But it`s the votes. Let me tell you one thing, folks. If they had the votes, they`d have taken the vote today. If they`d had the votes last night, they would have taken it last night. If they had the votes tomorrow, they`d be scheduling it for tomorrow.

Democrats need to stand with the supporters that put them in office and stand up to President Obama and say I don`t care how many times you call me this isn`t going to get done.

Now, there`s been a lot of talk about legacy. Is that what this is about, legacy? President Obama`s legacy? I keep dreaming about -- I`m so involved in this story, I keep dreaming about, what is this like?The president says trust me, and I thought, you know, this is kind of like a courtroom.

You know, when somebody stands up and says you`ve got to trust me. Wait a minute. You got some facts? I`m going to pretend tonight that I am Congressman Ed Schultz from Minnesota. Don`t worry, column, I`m not running. But I live in the 7th district in Minnesota. And this is what I would do if I were on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the authority that the President of course wants Fast-Track, which will lead to a terrible deal.

And I want all of my colleagues to know here tonight that there isn`t one trade deal that you could pull off your desk where history will be your guide, where you can tell this chamber tonight that it added American jobs. Not one. Not NAFTA, not CAFTA, not the most recent one we`ve done with South Korea. In fact, we`ve got another trade issue with South Korea right now because they`re dumping steel on our market and undercutting our markets and in Lorraine, Ohio. Now, I don`t represent Lorraine, Ohio. But in Lorraine, Ohio, they`ve already been given warn notices. In other words, you can expect layoffs.

The dumping of product on American soil and American jobs has cost us thousands and millions of jobs, and we sit here tonight wondering if we trust the President that it`s beginning to be OK, that everything is going to turn around and these numbers are going to reverse.

Now, I know the President`s making a lot of phone calls to a lot of you. And I know the president might be playing some golf with you, might show up on the campaign trail with you. He really wants this. But this isn`t about his legacy. This is about your legacy. It`s about my legacy. It`s about my constituents. It`s about your constituent.

President Obama, if you look at the calendar is a short-termer right now. And I would venture to say that the honorable leader of this House is a short-termer. We all are. We all got to go home and every two years get elected and we`re going to have to stand in front of people and tell them why their jobs are going overseas and why in the world we ever voted for Fast-Track, but yet we go out on campaign trail that we keep telling people. Oh, we`re fighting for the middle class.

No, we`re not. Democrats fight for the middle class. And if democrats turn and give this President trade promotion authority, we`re going to have a real problem down the road, worse than what we`ve had with any other trade deal, because this deal encompasses 40 percent of the global economy. Now, let me tell you what the media is not telling all of you colleagues here in the House. This is for six years. Some of you didn`t know that. I was stunned to hear that. Not trying to diss you. But let`s just be in the courtroom and do the facts.

That means that there`s going to be more trade deals. The media`s not talking about the deal that they`re trying to cut with China, which is going to be deal number two after TPP.

There`s been very little conversation about the trade deal that we`re going to be doing with the Europeans. You know what this is? This is a race to the bottom. This is going to be doing trade deals with countries that have Shari`a law. Now you conservatives, God bless you for being against the TPP and God bless you for being against Fast-Track, because we always hear you saying you don`t want anything to do with Shari`a law.

Well, guess what, Brunei is in this deal. The President called him a good guy. Speaking of the President, is this about his legacy? No, it`s about your legacy. President Obama has enough to be remembered on. He can be remembered on health care. He can be remembered on the economy. He can be remembered on the automobile loan program. There`s a lot of good stuff. He can be remembered as the most obstructive President in the history of this country.

And you know what else he`s going to be remembered for? Turning and going with conservatives who want to do a corporate deal from Wall Street, to do a trade deal that`s going to gut your constituents` jobs.

So tell me, how are you going to go home, how am I going to go home in the 7th district in Minnesota and say "Gosh, I voted to give the President authority to take your job, because that is exactly what is going to happen.

Nancy Pelosi doesn`t want to embarrass the President. That`s what`s reported in POLITICO. OK, I get that. But you know what? All of us in public life get embarrassed from time to time. The President, the way he`s been beat up by the right wing in this country, I think he can take it.

So, let`s not talk about whose going to be embarrassed and not embarrassed. Remember, every single union in this country is against this deal. The very people that put President Obama in office in Pennsylvania and in Ohio, they say they don`t want this.

If the president hadn`t had that support, he might not have won those states. The trade deal is for six years. And I feel that the President, to all of us here in the chamber, has not made the case. He says trust me. And I like the President. I`ve had lunch with him a few times. He`s a great guy, very personable, very heartfelt.

When my wife had cancer, President Obama wrote a nice beautiful note to my wife Wendy. He`s a real person. But on this issue, he is wrong. Respectfully, he is dead-wrong. And whereas he says "Trust me," I have facts and these are the facts here. This is what happens when you sign bad trade agreements.And it`s just not for a year. How many more times do I have to take this chamber to the chart?For the top 5 percent in this country, the income since 1967 has skyrocketed. Skyrocketed, gone from just over 150,000 to well over 300,000.

These are the folks in the front office that make the decisions, but they haven`t been sharing the wealth too much. In fact there`s been an attack on labor for the last 30 years. The other 20 percenters, as we break it up into five categories, let`s look at the 3rd 20 percent, the 4th 20 percent and the bottom 20 percent.

This is where American workers are when it comes to wages over all the trade deals that we have done in this country. Now, I respectfully ask the President of the United States. Mr. President, you asked me to trust you. You want my vote. Can you guarantee me that Fast-Track and the trade promotion authority that we`re going to give you and the deal that you want to do with TPP and the deal that you want to do with the Europeans and the deal that you want to do with China is going to change these lines?

I think we all know better than that. And I think we all know what the answer here is. Barack Obama`s going to come and go. Hillary Clinton`s going to come and go. Bernie Sanders is going to come and go. Bush is going to come move. We might even have another Bush. You never know.

But guess what. We`re always going to have this chart. And if we vote to make sure that all of these nations can attack our bottom line, it can attack human rights and not enforce what`s going on overseas, this is what we can expect, more of the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise here today begging my colleagues to make sure that they do the morally correct thing by making sure that it`s about a family legacy. It`s about that kitchen table where there`s an electrical bill, and the cable bill, and satellite bill, and the cell phone bill, and car payment, and a truck payment and a house payment.

And those workers in Lorraine, Ohio, they`ve already got a warned notice. They`re wondering how they`re going to pay all these bills and then they watch the news and they see what the hell, the United States is going to do another trade deal that`s going to make it even harder for the industry that I`m in where I can make a dollar and support my family. Oh, by the way, I`d love to send my kids to college.

Mr. President, respectfully, you`re wrong on this. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote "No" on it. And I urge you to think about your legacy and your constituents` legacy and their family legacy and just imagine what it`s going to be like, because we`re all public servants. And we have to think about the greater good, that it`s a hell of a lot more than us just getting re-elected and taking the corporate money and doing what we have to do to get re-elected. No, it`s about those people on Main Street in your hometown.

That`s what Fast-Track is about this time around. I asked Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn to vote no on this. To show the President the proper way, that we are Democrats, we are liberals, we are progressives, we care about the things that made this country great, it was on the back of workers and you can talk about manufacturing technology being pushed out of the country all you want and high-tech manufacturing.

Hey, we`ve got people that can do that. But why in the world would you want somebody from Vietnam to do it for $0.57 an hour? We`re better than that. I ask you to vote no on Fast-Track.

And Mr. Speaker I`d like to turn now to my colleague from California, the gentleman from California, John Garamendi who has done amazing work, amazing work on make it in America. And let me point out that there is no make it in America provision in this trade agreement.

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Mr. Speaker, I move that you give out Mr. Schultz another five minutes. He could not be more correct. He could not be more accurate about what is actually going on here. So, Mr. Speaker, I move another five minutes for Congressman Schultz.

SCHULTZ: Well.

GARAMENDI: Ed, you did it.

SCHULTZ: Thank you Mr. Garamendi. I`m bringing you here tonight to the floor, giving up my time, because of the work that you`ve done on make it in America. And I just want you to tell our colleagues, make sure that they know that there is no make it in America provision in this trade agreement, is that correct, sir?

GARAMENDI: Well, it`s worse than that, Mr. Schultz. If you take a look at this trade agreement, we have had on the books in America for more than half a century the buy America provision, using our constituents` tax money to buy American made products.

Incidentally, this goes back to George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, where they suggested that you use the purchasing power of the federal government to enhance American businesses, but in this trade agreement, there is a gutting of the buy America. It would give Japan companies located manufacturing facilities in Japan. The same access to the buy America provisions as that manufacturing company in Ohio. It is dead-wrong. It is going to be the American taxpayer money going out.

And remember, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge where Chinese steel was used, doubled, tripled the cost. And besides that, the welds were bad, the steel was bad. No, no, we want to bring it home. We want those jobs in America.

And that`s just the beginning of the problems. And you correctly pointed out that this is not just one trade deal. This is not just the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This happens to be also the European as well as a third negotiation that`s under way for services. And that negotiation includes countries like Pakistan, and you mentioned others.

No, no. We`re not beginning to give the President or the next president -- because it is a six-year deal. We`re not going to give all of this power and it is the constitution that gives the power to the Congress to negotiate trade deals. Not the administration, not the President, not George Washington, not George Bush and not Barack Obama. It is our power, and we should not concede that power.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Garamendi, I appreciate your time tonight on the Ed Show. Back to live action.

GARAMENDI: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

GARAMENDI: You hang on there and you keep preaching the gospel here, you`re absolutely right.

SCHULTZ: You know, when we have warn notices being given to American workers, I don`t know what`s going to wake our elected officials up to realize the seriousness of this.

GARAMENDI: Ed, why would they put into the provisions a trailer bill that would provide what is called trade -- they would give American workers that have lost their jobs a welfare check. Why would they put that in if this was all good for American workers?

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

GARAMENDI: And by the way, you talk about the auto industry. Why did the auto industry have to go to a bifurcated wage scale? Where a new hires get one half of what people that have been on the job for five or six or 10 years.

SCHULTZ: Well, the automobile industry, the big three have made about $53 billion since 2009. And now the auto workers have got to go back and negotiate for a lower wage.

GARAMENDI: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: I mean it is absolutely stunning to me. Congressman, quickly...

GARAMENDI: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: ... the votes. Do you think they`ll be there? Do you think the President will turn enough people on this? What`s going to happen?

GARAMENDI: I don`t think he`s going to. I think the kind of information that you just put out on national media will carry the day. There is nothing good for American workers in this proposal. There may be some things for Wall Street. There may be some things for the high-tech community and their ability to maintain their intellectual property in Hollywood.

But you go down to middle class, you go down to the Rust Belt, you go down to the 9 million jobs lost in the manufacturing sector after NAFTA and try to figure out what`s good in a new trade promotion authority or in the TPP, it`s not there.

SCHULTZ: OK.

GARAMENDI: It is not there at all. And for agriculture, hey, it`s not going to improve the agricultural scene across the United States.

SCHULTZ: That`s another chapter. Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

GARAMENDI: You got it.

SCHULTZ: John Garamendi from California with us on the Ed Show.

Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Will President Obama get the votes he needs for Fast-Track authority in the House?

Go to polls.msnbc.com/ed to cast your vote. You can do it throughout the show. We`ll bring you the results later on in the program. Follow us on Facebook. Like us on Facebook. Watch my Facebook feature "Give me a minute". And you can get my video Podcast at WeGotEd.com.

Coming up, new details about a foiled terror attack in Boston and another Democratic challenger enters the race.

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee will announce his campaign within the hour. We`ll bring it to you live.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And the numbers are coming in. Here`s where we stand on tonight`s Bing Pulse Poll. Tonight`s question, "Will President Obama get the votes he needs for Fast-Track authority in the House? As old football player announcer Keith Jackson would say "ho, neatly (ph) going down come on down on the wire. Hey, look at this." 49 percent, yes, 51 percent, no.

We`ll be right back on the Ed Show. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

We`re learning new details about a possible terror plot in Boston. 26-year-old man was killed by police Tuesday and another man is under arrest. According to court documents released a short time ago. Usaama Rahim planned to "Randomly kill police officers" June 2nd or 3rd. In the past hour, the man arrested yesterday David Wright appeared in court on charges connected to the plot.

NBC`s Jay Gray has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY GRAY, NBC CORRESPONDENT: As the terror investigation expands, police and federal agents today searching a home in Rhode Island. Officials in Boston are answering questions about the shooting death of 26-year-old Usaama Rahim, who they say charged officers and federal agents with a knife.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAM EVANS, BOSTON POLICE: The whole idea was to be as transparent as possible.

GRAY: Today, calling in Muslim and community leaders to view surveillance video of the incident.

DARNELL WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT & CEO OF THE URBAN LEAGUE OF EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS: We thank you that you have brought us together.

GRAY: After his brother, a former Boston area mom wrote on social media that Rahim was shot in the back while talking to his father on the phone saying "I can`t breathe"

WILLIAMS: What the video does reveal to us very clearly is that the individual was not on the cellphone, the individual was not shot in the back.

GRAY: Rahim had been under 24-hour surveillance by a joint terrorism task force for weeks.

SHAWN HENRY, FM. FBI EXEC. DR.: When you`re following somebody like that, you`ve got somebody under 24-hour surveillance, it`s indicative of the FBI having large concern about what he`s involved in.

GRAY: Concern that led officers to a second Boston neighborhood where they arrested a second suspect, David Wright.

SHAWN: In this particular case, they are absolutely going to look to see who else he was talking to. Are there other co-conspirators?

GRAY: It is a growing concern as terror organizations expand their reach on social media while the FBI expands its security and surveillance operation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: NBC`s Jay Gray joins us here on the Ed Show. Jay, this Boston Police Department taking this step to show the community leaders the video, how unprecedented in this -- is this and how impactful was it with the community?

GRAY: You know it`s interesting because I thought that this was something that had really never been done but they said today that they said they`ve done this on other occasions, brought in other community leaders, other religious leaders when there were concerns about this. The impact on the community has been huge here. A lot of people were very concerned about -- how all of this transpired right here in this parking lot. And by the way, we`re learning right now that Rahim actually worked at the CVS for a short time.

They were concerned that police shot this man in the back, that there was no attempt on police after seeing the video. Community leaders going back into these neighborhoods and saying "Look, we saw what happened, we know that he wasn`t shot in the back while on a cellphone". So it was very important.

SCHULTZ: Let me bring in Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-Large for The Atlantic. Steve, it seems like we just are chasing terrorists with new techniques. And after what unfolded in the Congress this week, where does this kind of surveillance leave us? And is it a fine line?

STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, of course, it`s a fine line. But in contrast to the kind of metadata programs that are out there, they had cause, they watched these individuals, they`ve been under surveillance for some time. And it just shows that the battlefield is now an electronic and digital one. And you don`t have to actually go to a physical battlefield over in Syria or Iraq to be a danger to American national interests.

And I think that we saw the police, the FBI, and the Intelligence services that highlighted what these gentlemen were up to allegedly perform exactly right, and while that`s a lot of money, it`s a lot of effort, we`re going to see a lot more of this.

SCHULTZ: Police say Rahim may have been radicalized by ISIS, inspired on social media. What`s your reaction there?

CLEMONS: Well, I think what we`re seeing is a pattern where many young people from a variety of different backgrounds are drawn into these Twitter exchanges. They get personal treatment from ISIS handlers that are handling social media, and they`re drawn into what are called dark spaces that are encrypted and anonymized and difficult, if not impossible for Intelligence agencies to get into those rooms. And so.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CLEMONS: We`re seeing more and more of these young people being inspired and drawn into stuff that we can`t see. And that`s a real disconcerting element in all this.

SCHULTZ: So did the Patriot Act stop this guy?

CLEMONS: We don`t know exactly under what conditions the warrants or what not were put in place to go chase him, but to me at first front, my gut says yes, the Patriot Act probably had a lot to do with this individual and being able to identify the digital markers in the conversations into what he was trying to do, that then elevated the need to put 24-hour watch on him.

SCHULTZ: Steve Clemons with us tonight on the Ed Show. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

CLEMONS: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: We`re awaiting Former Governor Lincoln Chafee`s presidential announcement, and the Republican field is about to get even more crowded.

A look at Bobby Jindal`s 2016 tease and other teases, ahead.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: We`re just minutes away from former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee`s 2016 announcement. We`ll have it for you live.

Still to come, Rick Santorum takes on the Pope, while Lindsey Graham takes on his own party on the issue of climate change and more Republicans get ready to join the crowded 2016 field. We`ll have analysis from our political panel ahead.

Employers added 201,000 jobs to payrolls to May according to ADP that was slightly ahead of estimates. The report comes two days before the government`s May employment data. And the trade deficit narrowed in April, as exports hit a record it shrunk 26 percent to $40.9 billion, marking the biggest decrease since 2009.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back on the Ed show.

Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee is announcing his bid for the democratic presidential nomination. Let`s listen in live.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINCOLN CHAFEE, FORMER GOVERNOR RHODE ISLAND: I believe that these priorities, education, infrastructure, health care, environmental stewardship, and a strong middle class are American`s priorities. I`m also running for president because we need to be very smart in these volatile times overseas.

I`d like to talk about how we found ourselves in the destructive and expensive chaos in the Middle East and North Africa. And then offer my views on seeking a peaceful resolution.

There were 23 senators who voted against the Iraq War in October of 2002. 18 of us are still alive and I`m sure every one of us has their own reasons for voting no. I`d like to share my primary three. The first reason is that the long painful chapter of the Vietnam era was finally ending.

This is my generation and the very last thing I wanted was any return to the horrific bungling of events into which we put our brave fighting men and women. In fact, we had a precious moment in time where a lasting peace was within our grasps. Too many senators forgot too quickly about the tragedy of Vietnam.

The second reason that I learned the second reason I voted against Iraq War resolution was that I learned in the first nine months of the Bush Cheney administration prior to September 11, not to trust them. As a candidate, Governor Bush had said many things that were for the campaign only governing would be a lot different. For example, a campaign staple was I`m a uniter, not a divider. He said very clearly that his foreign policy would be humble, not arrogant. And he promised to regulate carbon dioxide, a climate change pollutant. These promises were all broken early days of his administration and sadly, the lies never stopped. This was an administration not to be trusted.

My third reason for voting against the war was based on a similar revulsion to mendacity. Many of the cheerleaders for the Iraq War in the Bush administration had been writing about regime change in Iraq and American Unilateralism for years. They wrote about in 1992 defense planning guide.

In the 1996 report to Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the 1997 project for new American century and in the 1998 letter to President Clinton.

A little over a month before the vote on the war back in 2002, I read an article in "The Guardian" by Brian Whitaker.

Listen to this. "In a televised speech last week, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region," he said. Mr. Mubarak is an old-fashioned kind of Arab leader and, in the brave new post-September-11th world, he doesn`t quite get it.

What on earth did he expect the Pentagon`s hawks to do when they heard his words of warning? Throw up their hands in dismay? "Gee, thanks, Hosni. We never thought of that. Better call the whole thing off right away."

They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr. Mubarak and the hawks do agree on one thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee announcing his run for the presidency as a Democrat when he voted against the war in 2003. He was the only Republican to vote no. And it is a generational connection here from Vietnam to Iraq to the project for new American century -- going back in 20 years. This is his reason for running.

Let`s bring in Caroline Heldman, Professor of Politics and Occidental College. Also with us tonight Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union.

Caroline, lots of history here. Can the guy mount the campaign on 15, 20 years ago on the eyes of liberals?

CAROLINE HELDMAN, PROFESSOR OF POLITICS IN OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: No, I mean he is a long shot right? So Lincoln Chafee is this kind of eccentric, but very principled person. He is not -- He doesn`t have high support in Rhode Island. He doesn`t think he is most known for is trying to change Christmas tree to a holiday tree in the state capital.

He is almost no chance of winning but he has actually opens up something really interesting for Hillary Clinton because if he is not popular and he is pulling out one percent, it means that he can go after her in a way that the other candidates cannot.

So he is the wild card in the Democratic side on the primary.

SCHULTZ: Well, Matt Schlapp, he has already gone after Hillary Clinton. He said that anybody who voted for the war should not be President of the United States. He is going to be possibly a Republican favor, the way he is going to go after Clinton? What do you make of it?

MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: I don`t know Ed. Republicans are still kind of mad at him for leaving us. He is running every conceivable form. You can run if things like he does a political calculation on the right part. He got to be a member of where he runs it right now. He is going to run as the anti-war guy.

I do think for Democrats as a Republican looking at that primary process. You know, Hillary is clearly the leading candidate but, someone is going to get the energy. There is going to be an alternative to Hillary.

It sure looks like from the crowds that is Bernie Sanders. If you look at the energy in the crowd of Lincoln Chafee`s announcement, that doesn`t seem too impressive.

Bernie Sanders after on the hosting is really getting a crowd. If someone is going to take off, maybe it`s Martin O`Malley but someone is going to be the alternative. That alternative could actually push her to be a better candidate. They also could overtake her.

SCHULTZ: Well, you can`t argue, Caroline with the academic approach and the headiness of Lincoln Chafee. But he doesn`t come across as a guy who is actually kind of blunt and I mean that this is not the most dynamic guy in the world but does he offer something to this entire platform?

HELDMAN: I do think he offer something to the platform. He is going to just like Bernie Sanders going to shift it to the left. Oddly enough, many of his stances are right with Clinton or further to the left even though he has from as soon as been a Republican.

As a Republican, he was in favor of a lot of things and announced the Democrat, same sex marriage, raising the minimum wage. He was against drilling in Alaska.

So he has taken some very liberal positions and I think his goal is to really especially in foreign policy, move her further to the center, I`m sorry, further to the left because he sees hers being in the center and does not accept to her apology for going into the Iraq War.

SCHULTZ: And Matt Schlapp, I want to ask you a question about Senator Lindsey Graham. He is one of two candidates who have announced that he is willing to say on climate change that humans have had an effect. How is that going to play in your party?

SCHLAPP: It`s not going to be very popular. That is a loser in Republican primary politics. A Republicans believe that energy, American energy ought to be explored and exploited in the energy prices should be kept low.

In your monologue, you talked about the working guy, raising energy prices and moving manufacturing jobs overseas, does nothing to help that guy. And I think the Republicans are going to stand against climate change legislation strongly.

SCHULTZ: Well, you had too. People that thought that human behavior has something to do with climate change. What I`m speaking right now but he left you guys. He is now.

SCHLAPP: Right.

SCHULTZ: He was with the Democrat as an independent.

Caroline Heldman and Matt Schlapp, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

Still to come, save the date, more Republicans tease their 2016 plans. I mean save the date, that`s what they are all saying. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And the numbers are coming in. Here are the results of tonight`s Bing Pulse Poll. Tonight`s question, "Will President Obama get the vote he needs for fast track authority in the House?"

41 percent of you say "Yes". The number is changing over the last 20 minutes. 59 percent say "No," he won`t get the votes. Keep voting into the end of the hour at polls.msnbc.com/ed.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And at tonight`s Two Minute Drill is that a new football Jersey smell who is selling. Say, the No. 2 draft pick has the No.1 football Jersey in sales. Rookie quarterback Marcus Mariota is the top of the chart right now for football jersey sales in May. He edge out Buccaneers Jameis Winston for the top spot who was the number one pick.

Scandal hasn`t deflated at all Tom Brady`s numbers. The Patriots quarterback is holding steady at number three. Teammate Rob Gronkowski nabbed the number six spot for most jerseys sold.

Speaking of Gronkowski, Rob Gronkowski is riding high and he is turning his good week into a family affair. His brother Chris Gronkowski revealed the clan`s weekend`s plans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is next for you? What is next for you, guys? The big group. There`s another big outing that you guys have planned or what`s next?

SCHULTZ: The Gronkowski`s will be up against who? The competition has not been announced as of yet. The real question is whether or not the Family Feud set will have something for Gronk to spike.

Stick around. Rapid Response Panel coming up and a whole lot more on the Ed Show.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight on the Ed Show. Have you gotten your save-the-date notice yet?

Save the date. Bobby Jindal says he has a major announcement to make on June 24th. Louisiana Governor has been flirting with a presidential run, but he is struggling for relevancy outside the "Duck Dynasty" fan base.

Scott Walker shed light on his announcement prospects during an interview on Fox News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: We haven`t made an announcement yet and won`t do it until after our budget is done.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

WALKER: . at the end of this month but we`re going to be back in Iowa this weekend. We`ve been there couple times early this year. We`re going to be back with Joni Ernst on a Harley on Saturday Morning and Chuck Grassley, Senator Grassley at Mason City on Saturday night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Got to drive those Harley`s. Walker doesn`t have the schedule of someone who is undecided let`s say that.

The indicted former governor of Texas hinted at getting back in the saddle, Rick Perry said "He has a special announcement to make tomorrow. Jeb Bush is taking his time and potentially breaking the law, according to The New York Times, federal law says "Anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president is a candidate. He or she is subject to disclosure rules".

Jeb Bush has been raking in millions of dollars at fundraisers but claims he is still testing the waters. Bush is really testing the limits of the federal laws as I see it. Two watchdog groups filed complaints with the justice department. We`ll just have to keep waiting for save the date notice from Bush.

I want to go back to Caroline Heldman, professor or politics in Occidental College also with us tonight Matt Schlapp, American Conservative Union chairman and former White House director for George W. Bush.

Matt, you first this is a, you mean the crowd is so filled and there are so many candidates, you got to send out a save the date to get attention is that what is happening here?

SCHLAPP: Yeah, Republicans are acting a whole lot like Democrats. We don`t have a leading candidate. We don`t have a guy is in second place last time leading the field and if I had a dollar to bet I wouldn`t know who to bet on right now. It is a wide open race and I think it`s a good thing for us, it`s going to be very public and people are going to see these candidates disagree and clash and we`re going to come out with a great nominee.

SCHULTZ: Well, Matt the guy who hasn`t announced leads in the first primary say first caucus state should I say and that Scott Walker. What do you make of that?

SCHLAPP: You know, Scott Walker is a hero to Republicans and conservatives because he won in a tough state of Wisconsin and as you know, he took on a lot of the leading forces on the left in those races and he is a real hero for having withstood that.

The next question for Scott Walker is how does he execute his campaign plan, and can he connect to all these voters in early states. You know, he is in a great position to get the nomination.

SCHULTZ: Well, if he leads in the polls Caroline, why does he have to rush to announce?

HELDMAN: Well, he is rushing to announce so that he can break his way through the clutter. I mean we`re seeing the biggest field that we`ve ever seen if all of these candidates run in the history of presidential politics. And the entrance into the race to really be a serious contender is $100 million so candidates obviously are trying to stretch out that free media as much as they possibly can.

Scott Walker is up with Rubio and up with Bush right now and the three candidates are actually quite divergent, Scott Walker may be a hero to some but he really went after the working class. So, I think he`ll have a hard time in the general election if he is a Republican Party nominee.

SCHULTZ: Well, I`ve noticed this conversation about Jeb Bush, Caroline. About raising money and not declaring, how come none of the other Republican candidates are working him over about that?

HELDMAN: Well, I don`t think that`s -- I think that they don`t want the bloodbath this early they`re waiting for someone to emerge and these three candidates are only riding at about somewhere between 10 and 13 percent so until they actually have a front-runner, I don`t think they`re going to turn much on each other. I do think this will be one of the bloodiest Republican battles simply because of the sheer numbers in the race.

SCHULTZ: Matt, is Bush legal?

SCHLAPP: Yes, he is legal. The fact is these other candidates are just jealous because let`s face it. He is able to raise tremendous amounts of money legally for his super PAC before he announces so, you know, he will withstand all these legal challenges he is not doing anything against the law and the fact is he will be -- I assume he will make a decision to run soon and all those will be forgotten.

SCHULTZ: What about Rick Perry? He`s got legal problems in Texas what`s he doing thinking about running for president, Matt?

SCHLAPP: I think he if you were to ask him, he say the voters deserve another job to see me. He terrible job the last time when people really thought he would break out and take on Mitt Romney and he was incredibly wobbly and ill-prepared and he wants to show people that he is up for it. And by the way, this is America and why shouldn`t you run if you want the run.

SCHULTZ: What about that, Caroline?

HELDMAN: Well, as long as you have a million bucks, yeah, why shouldn`t he run? I mean this is not a contest that is open to everybody it`s a myth that that is the case. And I think that`s really reflected on the lack of socioeconomic diversity of our candidates on both sides of the aisle and also racial and gender.

SCHLAPP: Are you talking about Hillary Clinton?

HELDMAN: I`m talk about every single candidate in the race.

SCHULTZ: OK.

HELDMAN: Every single candidate in the race. So let`s not act like this is a job that`s open to an average everyday Americans, because it`s not our system is broken.

SCHLAPP: She is the big money candidate in this race.

HELDMAN: She and Jeb Bush are the big money candidates in this race yes.

SCHULTZ: And we will leave it there. Got to run, Caroline Heldman, Matt Schlapp, always good to have you with us. Thank you so much.

That`s the Ed show, I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>